Are you now ashamed if you did early voting for Biden?

[The Original Tree]

Hell, I was ashamed WHEN I voted for him. But the alternative is so ugly that it didn't matter, and still doesn't.

So you are Pro China Child Humping Hunter Biden, and Hair Sniffing Little Girl Grabbing Quid Pro China Joe?

Bet that's not going over so well up there in Heaven in the book of life.

 

[The Original Tree]

Now that his corruption has been exposed big time

Trump’s Twitter feed and the MAGAt echo chamber doesn’t really count as ‘big time’.

Better luck on the next faux poutrage!

Twitter blocked all of Trump campaign's Twitter feeds and the New York Post.

No Election Interference there, nope.

 

[Mac1958]

Hell, I was ashamed WHEN I voted for him. But the alternative is so ugly that it didn't matter, and still doesn't.

So you are Pro China Child Humping Hunter Biden, and Hair Sniffing Little Girl Grabbing Quid Pro China Joe?

Bet that's not going over so well up there in Heaven in the book of life.

You've really been conned. Manipulated.

Not my problem. Believe what you want.

 

[MarathonMike]

Hell, I was ashamed WHEN I voted for him. But the alternative is so ugly that it didn't matter, and still doesn't.

So you prefer a President who sold out to China and Ukraine because of Donald Trump's personality, got it.

 

[The Original Tree]

Proudly voted for Joe Biden on October 5

So did millions of others.

You and Humpin Hoe Biden tight, huh?

 

[The Original Tree]

Hell, I was ashamed WHEN I voted for him. But the alternative is so ugly that it didn't matter, and still doesn't.

So you are Pro China Child Humping Hunter Biden, and Hair Sniffing Little Girl Grabbing Quid Pro China Joe?

Bet that's not going over so well up there in Heaven in the book of life.

You've really been conned. Manipulated.

Not my problem. Believe what you want.

Humpin Hoe Hunter needs some more Chinese Children to Hump. Send a Dollah to make Hunter Biden Hollah. Won't you help? There are little girls in China starving for Humpin Hunter's D, even if they say no, you KNOW they want it.

Send your check to SenilePedophile@HumpingHunter.com.

 

[jknowgood]

Forget about his extreme far Left policies that will destroy this country.

Forget about his dementia.

Forget that he has never done anything in his life.

Forget that he is dumber than a doorknob that never gets anything right.

Forget about the fact that he was part of the worse administration in the history of the republic.

Now that his corruption has been exposed big time if you did you early voted for the grifter aren't you ashamed that you voted for somebody that corrupt? He sold out his country.

We told you he was a terrible candidate. You never should have elected him to be the Presidential candidate for the Party of Moon Bats. As bad as he is Commie Bernie would have been a more "honest" candidate. Bat shit crazy but at least you knew where he was coming from.

Here is the chance for you Moon Bats to apologize to America if you have already cast your vote for the dickhead.

Nothing has been "exposed" regarding Biden. Until there is solid proof, and law enforcement actions - it's back to "any day now".

And you seem to be confused as to WHO is on the ticket. It's not Hunter.

Like Russia collusion?

 

[Mac1958]

Hell, I was ashamed WHEN I voted for him. But the alternative is so ugly that it didn't matter, and still doesn't.

The indirect premise that Americans deserve better candidates is spot-on. Although I maintain respect for what the founding fathers accomplished, considering the time period and having little to go by in the way of forming a democratic republic, there were of course things they had no way of foreseeing.

One thing that's not changed: elected officials are those who tend to sell themselves the best to the most voters, however they can. These are by far not the best people for the job, regardless of party. What denies the best people from running? The REQUIREMENT to have access to multi-millions (which will soon be billions) narrows it down to only the wealthy, or having donors who are wealthy being able to run. Do I envy those who are wealthy? Absolutely not, if they're honest as hard work should pay off. Should it be a requirement to have millions or billions to run for office or does this level of wealth ensure that he or she is an exceptional candidate? Absolutely not.

As most know, corruption has infiltrated and ingrained itself in various political arenas (the perfect word for it-arenas). If we humans can't get it right there is another race going on globally that could soon become a factor. The use of AI replacing humans in key positions to "get things right" is no longer "sci-fi". As it stands, our constant political divisions (no longer a decent system of checks and balances but chaotic), one-upping, and all the other futile tactics are not working for us.

The way forward: candidates should be given a battery of tests including: IQ, personality, ethical decision making assessment, emotional IQ, and knowledge tests about the country and the world. Now there's something many would fail, including me! The results would be known by all voters, however, the individual names left out of it until the winner is declared based upon the results. Of course, we humans would still likely screw it up, bickering over the way the questions were worded or claiming that certain candidates didn't score as high as their backers assumed they would so it must have been rigged somehow. It's often wearing to be human

Can you imagine a country that actually decides to select the smartest, most globally informed, most emotionally stable, and most sane individual as its leader? I'm not sure which past president would have fared well given those screening measures as most of us do our best with limited skill sets, so upping the requirements for leadership seems quite reasonable. If and when Americans come together collectively to demand better representation, it can happen.

Well, two thoughts on this.

First, we treat national-level candidates like dogs, and that's an understatement. I can certainly understand why our REAL Best & Brightest have ZERO interest in running for office in these conditions. And We The People don't hold these people accountable for this -- in FACT, we CELEBRATE them for it -- and only enable them to do more of it.

And second, we deserve the "leaders" we choose. If we're willing to drop our standards into the mud as we have, then we damn sure deserve what we get. We can't blame anyone else for the fact that we know more about who won Dancing With The Stars than we do about the thugs, grifters and liars who have so much influence over our lives.

This is ENTIRELY a self-inflicted wound.

 

[TNHarley]

Forget about his extreme far Left policies that will destroy this country.

Forget about his dementia.

Forget that he has never done anything in his life.

Forget that he is dumber than a doorknob that never gets anything right.

Forget about the fact that he was part of the worse administration in the history of the republic.

Now that his corruption has been exposed big time if you did vote early for the grifter aren't you ashamed that you voted for somebody that corrupt? He sold out his country.

We told you he was a terrible candidate. You never should have elected him to be the Presidential candidate for the Party of Moon Bats. As bad as he is Commie Bernie would have been a more "honest" candidate. Bat shit crazy but at least you knew where he was coming from.

Here is the chance for you Moon Bats to apologize to America if you have already cast your vote for the dickhead.

They already knew he was a divider, fondled children and assaulted women. They have no shame.

 

[Mac1958]

Hell, I was ashamed WHEN I voted for him. But the alternative is so ugly that it didn't matter, and still doesn't.

So you prefer a President who sold out to China and Ukraine because of Donald Trump's personality, got it.

Whenever a nutter begins a sentence with "So you...", you can be sure a straw man is on the way.

 

[Dick Foster]

Are you now ashamed if you did early voting for Biden?

Biden's voters have no shame

Biden's voters have no God damned sense.

 

[Flash]

 

[toobfreak]

Forget about his extreme far Left policies that will destroy this country.

Forget about his dementia.

Forget that he has never done anything in his life.

Forget that he is dumber than a doorknob that never gets anything right.

Forget about the fact that he was part of the worse administration in the history of the republic.

Now that his corruption has been exposed big time if you did vote early for the grifter aren't you ashamed that you voted for somebody that corrupt? He sold out his country.

We told you he was a terrible candidate. You never should have elected him to be the Presidential candidate for the Party of Moon Bats. As bad as he is Commie Bernie would have been a more "honest" candidate. Bat shit crazy but at least you knew where he was coming from.

Here is the chance for you Moon Bats to apologize to America if you have already cast your vote for the dickhead.

Joe Biden shares a REMARKABLE SIMILARITY to Hillary Clinton:

BOTH of them spent a lifetime in politics bilking taxpayers to feed their own wealth while doing absolutely nothing, buoyed to political offices far beyond their qualification by layers upon layers of insular media and false claims.​

​

​

​

 

[ClaireH]

Hell, I was ashamed WHEN I voted for him. But the alternative is so ugly that it didn't matter, and still doesn't.

The indirect premise that Americans deserve better candidates is spot-on. Although I maintain respect for what the founding fathers accomplished, considering the time period and having little to go by in the way of forming a democratic republic, there were of course things they had no way of foreseeing.

One thing that's not changed: elected officials are those who tend to sell themselves the best to the most voters, however they can. These are by far not the best people for the job, regardless of party. What denies the best people from running? The REQUIREMENT to have access to multi-millions (which will soon be billions) narrows it down to only the wealthy, or having donors who are wealthy being able to run. Do I envy those who are wealthy? Absolutely not, if they're honest as hard work should pay off. Should it be a requirement to have millions or billions to run for office or does this level of wealth ensure that he or she is an exceptional candidate? Absolutely not.

As most know, corruption has infiltrated and ingrained itself in various political arenas (the perfect word for it-arenas). If we humans can't get it right there is another race going on globally that could soon become a factor. The use of AI replacing humans in key positions to "get things right" is no longer "sci-fi". As it stands, our constant political divisions (no longer a decent system of checks and balances but chaotic), one-upping, and all the other futile tactics are not working for us.

The way forward: candidates should be given a battery of tests including: IQ, personality, ethical decision making assessment, emotional IQ, and knowledge tests about the country and the world. Now there's something many would fail, including me! The results would be known by all voters, however, the individual names left out of it until the winner is declared based upon the results. Of course, we humans would still likely screw it up, bickering over the way the questions were worded or claiming that certain candidates didn't score as high as their backers assumed they would so it must have been rigged somehow. It's often wearing to be human

Can you imagine a country that actually decides to select the smartest, most globally informed, most emotionally stable, and most sane individual as its leader? I'm not sure which past president would have fared well given those screening measures as most of us do our best with limited skill sets, so upping the requirements for leadership seems quite reasonable. If and when Americans come together collectively to demand better representation, it can happen.

Well, two thoughts on this.

First, we treat national-level candidates like dogs, and that's an understatement. I can certainly understand why our REAL Best & Brightest have ZERO interest in running for office in these conditions. And We The People don't hold these people accountable for this -- in FACT, we CELEBRATE them for it -- and only enable them to do more of it.

And second, we deserve the "leaders" we choose. If we're willing to drop our standards into the mud as we have, then we damn sure deserve what we get. We can't blame anyone else for the fact that we know more about who won Dancing With The Stars than we do about the thugs, grifters and liars who have so much influence over our lives.

This is ENTIRELY a self-inflicted wound.

Thanks for adding an important factor that I missed, that the brightest and most stable types among us have absolutely zero interest in being president due to the incessant public bashing, led (imo) by the US media that controls the message and partly decides how we devolve or evolve. Now, for some reason I see you shaking your head thinking I have it backwards about who exactly is leading the cart. I've given this a lot of thought, and am still basically clueless about whether the media does the leading or the viewers. It's a safe bet to claim that it's both, so I'm going with that

You're right that we voters get what we get. Many people have accepted that it's "just the way things are" and fall for the divisive tactics that maintain the status quo. Those who make major profit because of the continued divisions and violence are suspect to say the least. Over 90% of all US media is controlled (used that word intentionally instead of owned) by about 6 to 8 individuals who happen to own the mega corporations following various takeovers, buyouts, and mergers. A few of these corps are acting like monopolies. In a fair world, these corps that devalue free enterprise would have paid the piper already at some point, but the mega payoffs err donations must be stalling that process.

The media "shows" emerged years ago when audience values changed. Ratings must have indicated that people would only tune in if a certain level of entertainment was added. Gone are the days of good journalists who captivated audiences with the news and equally as important played fair with both sides. The following link is a great piece about Walter Cronkite's life: When The Media Gave Both Sides a Hard Time: The Walter Cronkite Era

 

[Coyote]

Forget about his extreme far Left policies that will destroy this country.

Forget about his dementia.

Forget that he has never done anything in his life.

Forget that he is dumber than a doorknob that never gets anything right.

Forget about the fact that he was part of the worse administration in the history of the republic.

Now that his corruption has been exposed big time if you did you early voted for the grifter aren't you ashamed that you voted for somebody that corrupt? He sold out his country.

We told you he was a terrible candidate. You never should have elected him to be the Presidential candidate for the Party of Moon Bats. As bad as he is Commie Bernie would have been a more "honest" candidate. Bat shit crazy but at least you knew where he was coming from.

Here is the chance for you Moon Bats to apologize to America if you have already cast your vote for the dickhead.

Nothing has been "exposed" regarding Biden. Until there is solid proof, and law enforcement actions - it's back to "any day now".

And you seem to be confused as to WHO is on the ticket. It's not Hunter.

You are confused Moon Bat.

You stupid uneducated Moon Bats get your information from fake news like CNN and MSNBC and other idiot Left Wing new sources so you haven't heard the story of the exposed emails that clearly indicated he was selling out his country and the collaboration by Hunter's business partner.

Your boy got caught and all your filthy ass denial won't change that.

You Moon Bats are denying Biden corruption just like you assholes denied Crooked Hillary's corruption four years ago. Shame on you! Is a bigger welfare check so important to you that you will vote for some corrupt asshole like Biden that sold out his country so you can get other people to pay your bills? Where are your morals?

Where is your apology Moon Bat?

Sorry dude. I don't apologize to mentally deranged cultists like you. It would only serve to legitimize your delusional proclamations.

Let me know when someone is convicted or indicted.

 

[Mac1958]

Hell, I was ashamed WHEN I voted for him. But the alternative is so ugly that it didn't matter, and still doesn't.

The indirect premise that Americans deserve better candidates is spot-on. Although I maintain respect for what the founding fathers accomplished, considering the time period and having little to go by in the way of forming a democratic republic, there were of course things they had no way of foreseeing.

One thing that's not changed: elected officials are those who tend to sell themselves the best to the most voters, however they can. These are by far not the best people for the job, regardless of party. What denies the best people from running? The REQUIREMENT to have access to multi-millions (which will soon be billions) narrows it down to only the wealthy, or having donors who are wealthy being able to run. Do I envy those who are wealthy? Absolutely not, if they're honest as hard work should pay off. Should it be a requirement to have millions or billions to run for office or does this level of wealth ensure that he or she is an exceptional candidate? Absolutely not.

As most know, corruption has infiltrated and ingrained itself in various political arenas (the perfect word for it-arenas). If we humans can't get it right there is another race going on globally that could soon become a factor. The use of AI replacing humans in key positions to "get things right" is no longer "sci-fi". As it stands, our constant political divisions (no longer a decent system of checks and balances but chaotic), one-upping, and all the other futile tactics are not working for us.

The way forward: candidates should be given a battery of tests including: IQ, personality, ethical decision making assessment, emotional IQ, and knowledge tests about the country and the world. Now there's something many would fail, including me! The results would be known by all voters, however, the individual names left out of it until the winner is declared based upon the results. Of course, we humans would still likely screw it up, bickering over the way the questions were worded or claiming that certain candidates didn't score as high as their backers assumed they would so it must have been rigged somehow. It's often wearing to be human

Can you imagine a country that actually decides to select the smartest, most globally informed, most emotionally stable, and most sane individual as its leader? I'm not sure which past president would have fared well given those screening measures as most of us do our best with limited skill sets, so upping the requirements for leadership seems quite reasonable. If and when Americans come together collectively to demand better representation, it can happen.

Well, two thoughts on this.

First, we treat national-level candidates like dogs, and that's an understatement. I can certainly understand why our REAL Best & Brightest have ZERO interest in running for office in these conditions. And We The People don't hold these people accountable for this -- in FACT, we CELEBRATE them for it -- and only enable them to do more of it.

And second, we deserve the "leaders" we choose. If we're willing to drop our standards into the mud as we have, then we damn sure deserve what we get. We can't blame anyone else for the fact that we know more about who won Dancing With The Stars than we do about the thugs, grifters and liars who have so much influence over our lives.

This is ENTIRELY a self-inflicted wound.

Thanks for adding an important factor that I missed, that the brightest and most stable types among us have absolutely zero interest in being president due to the incessant public bashing, led (imo) by the US media that controls the message and partly decides how we devolve or evolve. Now, for some reason I see you shaking your head thinking I have it backwards about who exactly is leading the cart. I've given this a lot of thought, and am still basically clueless about whether the media does the leading or the viewers. It's a safe bet to claim that it's both, so I'm going with that

You're right that we voters get what we get. Many people have accepted that it's "just the way things are" and fall for the divisive tactics that maintain the status quo. Those who make major profit because of the continued divisions and violence are suspect to say the least. Over 90% of all US media is controlled (used that word intentionally instead of owned) by about 6 to 8 individuals who happen to own the mega corporations following various takeovers, buyouts, and mergers. A few of these corps are acting like monopolies. In a fair world, these corps that devalue free enterprise would have paid the piper already at some point, but the mega payoffs err donations must be stalling that process.

The media "shows" emerged years ago when audience values changed. Ratings must have indicated that people would only tune in if a certain level of entertainment was added. Gone are the days of good journalists who captivated audiences with the news and equally as important played fair with both sides. The following link is a great piece about Walter Cronkite's life: When The Media Gave Both Sides a Hard Time: The Walter Cronkite Era

Yeah, it seems to me that the media and the public just have an ongoing symbiotic relationship. One feeds into the other and the cycle just keeps repeating. Also, unfortunately, I think it also means that the quality of reporting is decaying over time, as the media fulfills its top priority of ratings and clicks with the spectacular stuff, rather than digging and probing the less exciting stuff.

So we get the predictable result: Instead of TV shows, radio shows and internet shows where there is left/right balance (like the old "Crossfire") that challenge the consumer to THINK, we mostly have one person screaming into the microphone or the camera, and their loyal fans buying it as "The Truth". Well, that's clearly bullshit, it's clearly going to produce distortions and outright lies, but we've gone too far down that path now.

 

[Flash]

Hell, I was ashamed WHEN I voted for him. But the alternative is so ugly that it didn't matter, and still doesn't.

The indirect premise that Americans deserve better candidates is spot-on. Although I maintain respect for what the founding fathers accomplished, considering the time period and having little to go by in the way of forming a democratic republic, there were of course things they had no way of foreseeing.

One thing that's not changed: elected officials are those who tend to sell themselves the best to the most voters, however they can. These are by far not the best people for the job, regardless of party. What denies the best people from running? The REQUIREMENT to have access to multi-millions (which will soon be billions) narrows it down to only the wealthy, or having donors who are wealthy being able to run. Do I envy those who are wealthy? Absolutely not, if they're honest as hard work should pay off. Should it be a requirement to have millions or billions to run for office or does this level of wealth ensure that he or she is an exceptional candidate? Absolutely not.

As most know, corruption has infiltrated and ingrained itself in various political arenas (the perfect word for it-arenas). If we humans can't get it right there is another race going on globally that could soon become a factor. The use of AI replacing humans in key positions to "get things right" is no longer "sci-fi". As it stands, our constant political divisions (no longer a decent system of checks and balances but chaotic), one-upping, and all the other futile tactics are not working for us.

The way forward: candidates should be given a battery of tests including: IQ, personality, ethical decision making assessment, emotional IQ, and knowledge tests about the country and the world. Now there's something many would fail, including me! The results would be known by all voters, however, the individual names left out of it until the winner is declared based upon the results. Of course, we humans would still likely screw it up, bickering over the way the questions were worded or claiming that certain candidates didn't score as high as their backers assumed they would so it must have been rigged somehow. It's often wearing to be human

Can you imagine a country that actually decides to select the smartest, most globally informed, most emotionally stable, and most sane individual as its leader? I'm not sure which past president would have fared well given those screening measures as most of us do our best with limited skill sets, so upping the requirements for leadership seems quite reasonable. If and when Americans come together collectively to demand better representation, it can happen.

Well, two thoughts on this.

First, we treat national-level candidates like dogs, and that's an understatement. I can certainly understand why our REAL Best & Brightest have ZERO interest in running for office in these conditions. And We The People don't hold these people accountable for this -- in FACT, we CELEBRATE them for it -- and only enable them to do more of it.

And second, we deserve the "leaders" we choose. If we're willing to drop our standards into the mud as we have, then we damn sure deserve what we get. We can't blame anyone else for the fact that we know more about who won Dancing With The Stars than we do about the thugs, grifters and liars who have so much influence over our lives.

This is ENTIRELY a self-inflicted wound.

Thanks for adding an important factor that I missed, that the brightest and most stable types among us have absolutely zero interest in being president due to the incessant public bashing, led (imo) by the US media that controls the message and partly decides how we devolve or evolve. Now, for some reason I see you shaking your head thinking I have it backwards about who exactly is leading the cart. I've given this a lot of thought, and am still basically clueless about whether the media does the leading or the viewers. It's a safe bet to claim that it's both, so I'm going with that

You're right that we voters get what we get. Many people have accepted that it's "just the way things are" and fall for the divisive tactics that maintain the status quo. Those who make major profit because of the continued divisions and violence are suspect to say the least. Over 90% of all US media is controlled (used that word intentionally instead of owned) by about 6 to 8 individuals who happen to own the mega corporations following various takeovers, buyouts, and mergers. A few of these corps are acting like monopolies. In a fair world, these corps that devalue free enterprise would have paid the piper already at some point, but the mega payoffs err donations must be stalling that process.

The media "shows" emerged years ago when audience values changed. Ratings must have indicated that people would only tune in if a certain level of entertainment was added. Gone are the days of good journalists who captivated audiences with the news and equally as important played fair with both sides. The following link is a great piece about Walter Cronkite's life: When The Media Gave Both Sides a Hard Time: The Walter Cronkite Era

Yeah, it seems to me that the media and the public just have an ongoing symbiotic relationship. One feeds into the other and the cycle just keeps repeating. Also, unfortunately, I think it also means that the quality of reporting is decaying over time, as the media fulfills its top priority of ratings and clicks with the spectacular stuff, rather than digging and probing the less exciting stuff.

So we get the predictable result: Instead of TV shows, radio shows and internet shows where there is left/right balance (like the old "Crossfire") that challenge the consumer to THINK, we mostly have one person screaming into the microphone or the camera, and their loyal fans buying it as "The Truth". Well, that's clearly bullshit, it's clearly going to produce distortions and outright lies, but we've gone too far down that path now.

Screaming? You mean like that TDS afflicted dingbat modertor that was screaming at Trump during the townhall?

 

[Mac1958]

Hell, I was ashamed WHEN I voted for him. But the alternative is so ugly that it didn't matter, and still doesn't.

The indirect premise that Americans deserve better candidates is spot-on. Although I maintain respect for what the founding fathers accomplished, considering the time period and having little to go by in the way of forming a democratic republic, there were of course things they had no way of foreseeing.

One thing that's not changed: elected officials are those who tend to sell themselves the best to the most voters, however they can. These are by far not the best people for the job, regardless of party. What denies the best people from running? The REQUIREMENT to have access to multi-millions (which will soon be billions) narrows it down to only the wealthy, or having donors who are wealthy being able to run. Do I envy those who are wealthy? Absolutely not, if they're honest as hard work should pay off. Should it be a requirement to have millions or billions to run for office or does this level of wealth ensure that he or she is an exceptional candidate? Absolutely not.

As most know, corruption has infiltrated and ingrained itself in various political arenas (the perfect word for it-arenas). If we humans can't get it right there is another race going on globally that could soon become a factor. The use of AI replacing humans in key positions to "get things right" is no longer "sci-fi". As it stands, our constant political divisions (no longer a decent system of checks and balances but chaotic), one-upping, and all the other futile tactics are not working for us.

The way forward: candidates should be given a battery of tests including: IQ, personality, ethical decision making assessment, emotional IQ, and knowledge tests about the country and the world. Now there's something many would fail, including me! The results would be known by all voters, however, the individual names left out of it until the winner is declared based upon the results. Of course, we humans would still likely screw it up, bickering over the way the questions were worded or claiming that certain candidates didn't score as high as their backers assumed they would so it must have been rigged somehow. It's often wearing to be human

Can you imagine a country that actually decides to select the smartest, most globally informed, most emotionally stable, and most sane individual as its leader? I'm not sure which past president would have fared well given those screening measures as most of us do our best with limited skill sets, so upping the requirements for leadership seems quite reasonable. If and when Americans come together collectively to demand better representation, it can happen.

Well, two thoughts on this.

First, we treat national-level candidates like dogs, and that's an understatement. I can certainly understand why our REAL Best & Brightest have ZERO interest in running for office in these conditions. And We The People don't hold these people accountable for this -- in FACT, we CELEBRATE them for it -- and only enable them to do more of it.

And second, we deserve the "leaders" we choose. If we're willing to drop our standards into the mud as we have, then we damn sure deserve what we get. We can't blame anyone else for the fact that we know more about who won Dancing With The Stars than we do about the thugs, grifters and liars who have so much influence over our lives.

This is ENTIRELY a self-inflicted wound.

Thanks for adding an important factor that I missed, that the brightest and most stable types among us have absolutely zero interest in being president due to the incessant public bashing, led (imo) by the US media that controls the message and partly decides how we devolve or evolve. Now, for some reason I see you shaking your head thinking I have it backwards about who exactly is leading the cart. I've given this a lot of thought, and am still basically clueless about whether the media does the leading or the viewers. It's a safe bet to claim that it's both, so I'm going with that

You're right that we voters get what we get. Many people have accepted that it's "just the way things are" and fall for the divisive tactics that maintain the status quo. Those who make major profit because of the continued divisions and violence are suspect to say the least. Over 90% of all US media is controlled (used that word intentionally instead of owned) by about 6 to 8 individuals who happen to own the mega corporations following various takeovers, buyouts, and mergers. A few of these corps are acting like monopolies. In a fair world, these corps that devalue free enterprise would have paid the piper already at some point, but the mega payoffs err donations must be stalling that process.

The media "shows" emerged years ago when audience values changed. Ratings must have indicated that people would only tune in if a certain level of entertainment was added. Gone are the days of good journalists who captivated audiences with the news and equally as important played fair with both sides. The following link is a great piece about Walter Cronkite's life: When The Media Gave Both Sides a Hard Time: The Walter Cronkite Era

Yeah, it seems to me that the media and the public just have an ongoing symbiotic relationship. One feeds into the other and the cycle just keeps repeating. Also, unfortunately, I think it also means that the quality of reporting is decaying over time, as the media fulfills its top priority of ratings and clicks with the spectacular stuff, rather than digging and probing the less exciting stuff.

So we get the predictable result: Instead of TV shows, radio shows and internet shows where there is left/right balance (like the old "Crossfire") that challenge the consumer to THINK, we mostly have one person screaming into the microphone or the camera, and their loyal fans buying it as "The Truth". Well, that's clearly bullshit, it's clearly going to produce distortions and outright lies, but we've gone too far down that path now.

Screaming? You mean like that TDS afflicted dingbat modertor that was screaming at Trump during the townhall?

Calm down, Trumpster.

 

[Jackson]

Forget about his extreme far Left policies that will destroy this country.

Forget about his dementia.

Forget that he has never done anything in his life.

Forget that he is dumber than a doorknob that never gets anything right.

Forget about the fact that he was part of the worse administration in the history of the republic.

Now that his corruption has been exposed big time if you did you early voted for the grifter aren't you ashamed that you voted for somebody that corrupt? He sold out his country.

We told you he was a terrible candidate. You never should have elected him to be the Presidential candidate for the Party of Moon Bats. As bad as he is Commie Bernie would have been a more "honest" candidate. Bat shit crazy but at least you knew where he was coming from.

Here is the chance for you Moon Bats to apologize to America if you have already cast your vote for the dickhead.

Nothing has been "exposed" regarding Biden. Until there is solid proof, and law enforcement actions - it's back to "any day now".

And you seem to be confused as to WHO is on the ticket. It's not Hunter.

The Big Guy IS on the ticket!

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Bidens voters have no shame. Pedophilia, incest, perversion.......its all good.